Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Superannuation needs a sustainable framework

What does a sustainable superannuation system look like? And do the reforms announced by the Treasurer make our system more or less sustainable?

Let’s start with the first question. My assumption is that superannuation is ‘forced’ savings that are designed to reduce retirees' reliance on the government-funded old-age pension. Those who can afford to save enough during their lifetime to take financial care of themselves in their old age should be encouraged to do so.

But if this is the underlying principle, our superannuation system clearly lacks one key element.

At present, if you are over 60 and retired, you can take your superannuation as a tax-free lump sum. You can spend it or arrange your affairs so that your income is reduced and you are at least partially eligible for the pension.

In contrast, a sustainable superannuation system would require retirees to turn their superannuation savings into a flow of income (a lifetime annuity). This would reduce the pension paid to retirees by the government. Tax benefits on superannuation savings would make sense because they would help reduce future government pension liabilities. The old-age pension would be a true safety net.

I have discussed this before. Alan Kohler notes that such required lifetime annuities are used in the UK and Canada.

If the government does move to an ‘annuity’ approach, how should it tax superannuation contributions? At present this is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, as John Freebairn explains.

So let’s do a little ‘hypothetical’. Given the current old age pension, what level of superannuation contribution would be ‘neutral’ for the government in terms of revenues and receipts. I will work from the single pension which I will round up to $20,000 per year. This is income tested. So if your income exceeds about $4,000 per year you start to lose the pension at a rate of 50 cents for every extra dollar of income. Your pension is eliminated once your annual income (as a single person) exceeds about $44,000.(The rounding means my figures are approximate - but fine for illustrative purposes).

Now, suppose that you receive income from an annuity that you were required to buy with your superannuation. Then if your annuity payout was between $4,000 and $44,000 per year the government would save 50 cents for every extra dollar you receive in your annuity every year. So if you save another dollar in superannuation then the government saves about 50 cents in terms of the present value of future pension payouts.

In this sense, a tax concession of up to 50 cents per dollar saved as superannuation would be roughly ‘revenue neutral’ for the government.

Of course, if your annuity is more than $44,000 per year then you save the government nothing. You are ineligible for the pension and an extra dollar in superannuation simply gives you a tax concession with no reduced government spending when you retire.

Or put another way, if your superannuation balance is more than about $1 million, the tax concession on further superannuation savings is a cost to the government without any offsetting benefit to the government when you retire.

So how should the superannuation system be reformed? Introduce a ‘required annuity’. Rationalise the hodge-podge of taxes while at the same time designing the pension scheme to mesh seamlessly with the superannuation system. And introduce a tax on superannuation income for those retirees who are ‘clear’ of the pension thresholds.

So what did the Treasurer do? He announced one of these changes - which is better than nothing. The reforms “[c]ap the tax exemption for earnings on superannuation assets supporting income streams at $100,000, with a concessional tax rate of 15 per cent applying thereafter …”.

Now this is a long way above $44,000 but the press release does ‘tie the figure’ back to the current pension. Good!

Also, 15% is not 50%, the current effective marginal ‘tax rate’ for a pensioner who loses 50 cents pension for each extra dollar earned. But this is probably a good thing because a higher tax rate would just lead to more ‘rearranging’ of retirees' affairs to avoid the tax.

But clearly this is just a first step. The pension and superannuation systems need to be thought of as a single system. This means that some or all of superannuation savings have to become a ‘pension replacing’ annuity. It means the income testing for the pension needs to be tied into the superannuation tax concessions. More broadly, it means clarifying the role of government and individual responsibility for retirement.

We have taken the first step. Now the government needs to take a few more.

Join the conversation

8 Comments sorted by

  1. Robert McDougall

    Small Business Owner

    i'd say a fair system would be your get a flat 15% DISCOUNT on tax paid on super contributions, and pre retirement income earned by super, but once retired pay the normal rate of tax according to the current tax scales and limit co-contributions from the government to only those on the first and second rungs of the income tax scale.

    report
  2. George Harley

    Retired Dogsbody

    Good stuff,
    Tinkering around the edges with a system that could be made fair and viable.
    The bitterness and acrimony between the current government and opposition makes a bipartisan approach highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

    report
  3. Lee Emmett

    Guest House Manager

    I recall that there is a proposal to set up a 'superannuation-panel' to find more long-term, viable changes to the system.

    In the meantime, the superannuation-industry body has accepted that the reforms put forward so far don't warrant a full-scale 'advertsing war' like that mounted by the mining industry against the minig tax.

    It seems to me that the more income an individual (or company) receives, the more ways there are to avoid paying realistic taxes. As governments need revenue to enable…

    Read more
  4. Lincoln Fung

    Economist

    While the view and argument of Professor King may be regarded as "right" from a particular point of view or economics, it is not necessarily right or correct.
    King seems making no difference between one's own money/income with the money provided by other taxpayers.
    Any conclusion based on such a view point is likely to be problematic when one take a different view.

    report
  5. Trevor Kerr

    ISTP

    Stephen, at some stage would you consider writing more on your ideas about "post-retirement spending"? I mean, if I take out my super as a lump sum, what's the effect of different kinds of disbursement of those funds? Suppose I buy a new car, would that be "bad"? I guess transferring cash overseas would be "bad".
    Also, if/when the ore boom ends, could the Govt direct that super funds invest in national infrastructure, rather than off-shore investments?

    report
  6. Bronwyn Shimmin-Clarke

    Business Analyst

    I agree that this needs to be simplified and aligned. There is too much complexity and misalignment.

    I thought that superannuation was a sheltered form of savings for old age, so why tax on entry and why tax on earnings? Aren't you trying to encourage savings?

    I then thought it was a form of income for old age, so why not just tax when earnings are withdrawn and income is received by the person?

    If they don't align super with other forms of income including investments and pensions then people will just find the loopholes.

    report
  7. Terry Reynolds

    Financial and political strategist

    The real problem at the moment is the hostility by the Coalition to almost everything the Government does as witnessed over increasing pressures from unauthorised migration. Instead of the two parties sitting down and working out the most sensible approach to providing the optimum retirement income and services for all retirees, the public is being constantly spooked with deliberate exagerations. One party is working hard to astutely govern the nation in a period of worldwide economic malaise, while…

    Read more